my meineke. >>> and we are back with bob rubin and paul o'neill. i say in my opening commentary, paul o'neill says if you want to provide subsidies for people, write them a check. why do it in this hidden way through the tax code which first of all is permanent and perpetual and secondly, you're not being up front about it. >> two comments if i may, fareed. one thing it's not permanent. you can always change it through legislation. number two, even if you're right, which i'm not sure that you're right, we're not going redo the federal budget. if you think it's important, i think charitable contributions and health care are important, then you have to maintain it in its current form. >> you would try to get rid of the corporate side. i think it's like the individual side yochl view to take each one of them and decide on an individual basis. in the long run, i think paul is right in one sense. it probably makes more sense to have it all on the spending side. on the other hand as i said a moment ago, think there are a lot of important issues being obs